Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Iraq Returns to the Stage in Congress

Congress returns from a week-long break today as senators anticipate the reappearance of an issue that has been relegated to the background so far in 2008 – the war in Iraq.

Senate Democrats plan two procedural votes early this week on war-related legislation, including a proposal by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to order the administration to begin moving troops out of Iraq and changing their mission to a more limited one. A second Feingold proposal would require the administration to deliver a report within 60 days on its worldwide terror strategy.

Democrats don’t expect either bill to get the necessary 60 votes to move forward. But that’s not necessarily the point. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader and a cosponsor of both proposals, is scheduling the votes to repay Mr. Feingold for his cooperation on some earlier national security legislation.

Democrats also intend to take the opportunity to remind voters of the ongoing war and their support for bringing it to a close while trying to show that most Republicans do not share that view. The terror report measure calls for an assessment of the relative threat posed in “particular regions or countries,” which is Democratic code for talking about Afghanistan as a more crucial front than Iraq in the anti-terror fight.

If recent history is any guide, Republicans will assail Democrats for wasting Senate time on legislation that cannot pass and point to findings that the 2007 troop buildup is working in Iraq. They’re also likely to say Democrats should be devoting their energy to finding a way to pass stalled terror-surveillance legislation – a major item confronting the returning House and Senate.

Earlier this month, the House left town without considering a Senate-passed bill extending expanded surveillance authority for the Bush administration. Republicans have been criticizing them ever since for putting the nation at risk by inaction, a charge Democrats have dismissed as fear-mongering.

With the House and Senate back in town for a few weeks, lawmakers will no doubt get a little more serious about coming to agreement though Democrats seem emboldened on challenging the administration on the terror issue.

The House is also scheduled to consider a renewable energy measure this week and could take up a proposal to establish an independent panel to help police lawmakers. The indictment last week of Representative Rick Renzi, Republican of Arizona, on serious corruption charges could provide momentum for the new ethics watchdog. The broad indictment could also provide momentum for calls for Mr. Renzi to leave Congress sooner rather than later.

Given the changing of the guard in Cuba, there is likely to be renewed discussion about lifting trade and travel restrictions with that country. “Great powers engage,” Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska and a proponent of improving relations with Cuba, said on CNN’s “Late Edition” on Sunday. “Great powers are not afraid. Great powers trade.”

If the Democrats can’t convince Americans that they’ll be better able to spur the Iraqis to form their own equitable nonsectarian government than the Republicans, I don’t think they’ll win the presidency.

How about the Dems add something else to this new move? How about they insist that the US makes a concerted effort to get some allies to help out with this so called war or we get out? Why do we have to do this alone? Is it because most of this surge is meant to cover up for all the lies and mistakes commited by the Bushies? Is our presense in Iraq to stay the course until someone else (like a Democrat) has to clean up the mess? The situation in Iraq is like a brain dead patient in the ICU. As long as Dr Bush doesn’t pull the plug, he can say he didn’t kill the patient.
Seriously-if this mission is so vital, then maybe the over stretched over used over killed over maimed United States Military should not be doing it alone?

With GOP almost anointed a pro-war candidate for the race,one does not see any major policy change to go through in the congress any time soon.It will have to await the arrival of the new occupant in the White House on 20 Jan 2009.

Just another craven attempt by the Dem’s to demonize the administration at the expense of the greater good for the country. It is amazing how many different rationales the Dem’s have gone through to dismiss the obviously improving situation in Iraq. They have painted themselves into a corner and now just want to forget Iraq entirely and move the goal posts to Afghanistan solely. We need to win in both conflicts but it never ceases to amaze me how the Dem’s put their political needs above that of the country. How could anyone really take Harry Reid seriously anymore? He waved the white flag over a year ago and pronounced the surge DOA in a crass partisan attack on the administration. He is unworthy of his title.

While the rest of us have been blissfully watching the Super Bowl and the Oscars, some 28 young Americans have died in combat in Iraq and total killed in action are poised to reach 4,000. This is success?
Clearly, there will be more of the same until the very last day of the Bush administration. A delusional president wants nothing more then an excuse from the opposition to repeat the same tired old rants about terrorism and victory.
Judging by primary voter turnout, it seems increasingly likely that the American people are about to hand this man a thunderous rejection.
In the meantime, the opposition must continue to responsibly challenge these policies and prepare a realistic alternative.

Iraq is never going to stand up and take care of their own security until we give them a deadline. The Iraqi government would agree to any long term US security agreement because they don’t have to deal with the tough issues that way. They can take vacations and let our soldiers catch the shrapnel for them.
We simply cannot afford to go on supporting a giant welfare state in hopes they will contract all their oil through Exxon. Let Big Oil pay for the war if they want us to stay any longer. They are certainly in better financial shape than the US treasury.

If we are going to be involved for 100 years shouldn’t we be fielding an Army that is filled with a very high percentage of members who can speak the local languages, understand the culture and be of age equal to the local tibal members;

Will our investments yield us some ownership of the oil for which we bleed?;

How do we verify the veracity of the Administration’s investment solicitations; and,

How do we assign financial consequences for those who have not performed proper due diligence in creating these costs and justifications?

Does all of this really concern the nation when so few are at risk physically?

Has anyone calculated what the cost will be to return all the battered equipment (humvees, choppers, tanks, jets et. al.)?
Everything will either have to be scraped or rebuilt. Same too for the M-16’s. (To borrow from the John Deere line…nothing runs like an AK).

But more importantly, has anyone given any thought to how you deal with all the soldiers? Will they have jobs, post-traumatic disorders, hidden cancer issues from exposure to depleted uranium munitions?

If they return to VA hospital conditions like those recently reported on, they will be wards of the state…and a very ungrateful state.

As usual Dems are long on words and short on action. Since taking control of Congress they have done absolutley nothing.
Never mind “need for a change”, what about illegal immigration, the desperate energy situation, the need to seal our borders & the war on terror?
These problems will not go away by ignoring them.

#4 David
I think most people on the planet would agree that the surge has worked-or is working as the Bushies like to say.
If you put enough troops into a place, then they will have an effect.
One of the problems that I have with this surge is that it was about 4 years too late. There should have been a surge about the time the Bushies were declaring mission accomplished.
So now you are commending the Bushies for their incompetance. To his credit, McCain was critical of this lack of competance with the Bushies.And let’s not forget the lies that got us there in the first place.
Al Qaida was not in Iraq until the US arrived and did not secure the borders. So now the Bushies, and McCain want to claim the fight against Al Qaida in Iraq. Well, they should, they let them in. Certainly, Sadam did not, he was not interested in sharing power with anyone.
So where is Al Qaida David? Once they are out of Iraq, is the problem solved? No. Al Qaida is opportunistic-they have moved to easier targets, less defended targets. Where would that be David?

Well. the democrat subversives are playing politics with our security, and they’re coninuing to undermine the military.
What else is new? Concerned about military deaths?Where were you when more military died during Clinton’s administration, or Carter’s? There have been more murders in our major cities over the past month than deaths in Iraq against our terrorist enemies.
Put one of the democrat lightweights in the White House and you will see just how weak and inexerienced they are. God forbid that happening.

Time for a little fact-checking on Iraq.
In accessing the pre-invasion situation in Iraq, one must recognize the existence of world class scientific institutes, proliferated throughout Iraq, conducting research in nuclear, chemical and biological disciplines with the capacity to quickly reconstitute full scale WMD programs once unfettered by UN inspectors, inspectors who had been allowed re-entry to Iraq only because Coalition Forces were massed on Iraq‘s Southern border- and – as admitted by Saddam, would have been summarily evicted once those forces had been re-deployed, ((it is important to note that with the approach of the oppressive summer heat of the Iraqi desert, and the intolerable burden of combat in chem/bio gear, the border encampment of Coalition forces could not have long been sustained. Circumstances conveniently discounted by the “give the inspectors more time” argument.)) – sobering facts given our shock at finding after the 1st Gulf War how perilously close Saddam had progressed in his determined quest to develop nuclear weapons.

How conviently Hillary has “forgotten” the statement of her own husband: Bill Clinton, in 1998, who summarized the Iraqi threat to the world community as follows: “Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors presents a threat to the entire world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. Without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years. Hussein is a threat to his people and to the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.”

But as history has recorded, Clinton was exceedingly long on platitudes and woefully short on substance; and, left the burden of the heavy lifting to a thankfully more principled successor.

Unfortunately, with the constant drumbeat of defeatist criticism from the “cut and run” crowd from the left, criticism that has been dramatically amplified by sycophants of a compliant news media, the President’s job approval poll numbers in our war against terrorism have been dramatically depressed. Circumstances which have prompted leftist politicians such as Hillary who, originally, oft spoke boldly and defiantly of the necessity to disarm Saddam when public opinion polls strongly favored such action, but are now seeking every opportunity to disavow their previous statements declaring a robust support for the war; and, to now proclaim that they were “brainwashed” into compliance by faulty intelligence. Despicable commentary that is destructive to the morale of our troops engaged in deadly combat with a determined enemy. An enemy that, despite staggering losses inflicted on them by Coalition forces, derives encouragement and sustainability from the dissension fomented by the American left. Precisely the same observation documented by the North Vietnamese Commander, General Giap, subsequent to the Vietnam conflict.

It’s incredible how quick the left is to hoist the “white flag” when confronted with adversity. Sound familiar? How far are they willing to retreat from those who have a visceral hatred for our Western culture before we’re finally cornered? How many more 9/11s is the Left prepared to endure before they would be willing to stand and fight? The neurosis of the liberal mindset defies rational explanation. Surely members of “The Greatest Generation” who demanded total victory over the Fascists of WW II, must hang their heads in shame when they witness the American Left of today cowering before the modern day threat of Islamofacism! Greg Neubeck

As long as Congress is taking up Iraq again, they should consider this: Any future funding of the war, which the Democrats have proven unwilling to just cut off, should instead be raised through the selling of “war bonds.” No different from regular Treasury bonds, except in their name. But it would draw attention to how costly and debt-financed the war is, and the sales of the war bonds would be an indicator of the (un)popularity of the war.

I don’t know the last time we sold war bonds, but the idea of a bond drive for this crazy war, with the ridiculous marketing slogans and rhetoric, would certainly make the Dems point without denying funding to the troops.

We devastated a country for no good reason at the expense of many iraqi and US lives. We do owe it to this country to leave it
in a functioning state. The problem is that our presence maybe hindering Iraq’s development. The Iraqi gov’t needs to create Iraqi solutions.
Republicans act as though Iraqis are subhumans that can’t run their own affairs…They’re not…they can find their own leaders and fend off their own terrorists.It’s time for America to allow the peoples of Iraq and Pakistan to choose their own leaders and make their own policies, because we don’t understand their cultures.

The analysis of success of the surge needs to be greatly expanded. NPR, finally, pointed out that many homes do not have any electricity at all for days on end and hospitals have had babies die because the electric system goes out. The surge is totally dependent on keeping the paid groups and the Sadr militia docile, and no one knows how long this will last. And several hundred Iraq citizens are still being killed each month; if this were extrapolated to the U.S. population that would be at least 10,000 people. Some success. Also, with 150,000 or more troops in Iraq after almost 5 years, how long will it require for improvements to be made that are adequate for withdrawal? A thousand year U.S.Reich in Iraq?

Democrats cannot accomplish their goals in Congress because the Republicans continue to block them at every turn in the Senate.
But funding the war through war bonds is the best idean I’ve heard. No more funds for Iraq except from war bonds. See how many republicans sign on to that one.

The American Voter has to realize nothing will change in Iraq unless we get serious about who we elect to Congress. Congress is the problem, not the solution. They approved and funded a war in the wrong place, they approved and funded all George Bush’s mis-steps, they do the ear-marks, they succumb to the lobbyists, yet we re-elect them at a 90% pace. We have met the enemy: us.

I love the new, improved Democrat talking point on the surge: “Well, of course, if you put enough troops in, you’ll get a reduction of violence, but what happens when they leave?”.

Does anyone remember their predictions of a year ago or even their claims of failure last summer? Yes, that’s why God gave us Google. Look it up. Needless to say, they eagerly anticipated disaster — a Saigon scenario where our enemies won and desperate Iraqi allies clung to our helicopters as we evacuated.

Now the Dems have to figure out how to abandon their apocalyptic fantasy without alienating their anti-American base. It’ll be fun to watch.

It’s obvious that the far-left wing of the Democrats now control the party. It’s also obvious that they have no coherent plans for any of the global or domestic challenges facing the States.

What is the plan for Iraq? Cut and run?
What is the plan for the Mid-East? Cave in to Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas?
What is the plan for dealing with Putin? Ignore him? Leave it to Europe to deal with him?
What is the plan for Africa? More encouragement of failed socialist economic policies?
What is the plan for Darfur?
What is the plan for North Korea?
What is the plan for Burma?
What is the plan for Social Security? Ignore it?
What is the plan for Medicare? Continue to cut the pay of nurses and doctors?
What is the plan for the federal budget? Raise taxes and spend more money?

I’m a libertarian. I know where the Republicans stand on these issues. All I know about the Democrats is that they want surrender, appeasement, isolation, and empty ideals.

I agree with Ken post # 11 90%. the enemy is voter ignorance not the people in general. but congress is the problem in DC allowing bush to excercise what ever foreign policy he wants.//www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
the link takes you to a doc done by pbs on the 2007 military appropriations bill and its 2700 earmarks.
my omitted post explained how the problems facing the nation are a result of corruption in both parties as gop and dems used the iraq war to waste billions of $$ in contracts for equipment that will never be used.
but it also included a comment about yellow journalism from the nytimes (mccain story) and a failure to do any proper investigative journalism on any # of scandels that have yet to be resolved: most notably over 300,000 missing whitehouse emails spanning a time when numerous scandels occured. this paper is a joke. it has no right to print anything and call it news. it censored my on topic post because it pointed out this publication’s hypocrasy and desire to sell instead of uncover the truth. well sex scandles sell so the mccain story ran while pre war WMD intelligence, valerie plame, us attorney firing, KBR/halliburton sexual assault all go under reported. the times needs a new editor.

On what planet does “working” mean “failing a little less horrifically”? Just because people say the surge is working because violence is (slightly) down, doesn’t mean we have made progress toward any of our so-called goals in Iraq.

Also, I think we are probably being fed a huge lie when we are told that it was the greater numbers of troops that led to decreased violence – our strategies also changed dramatically during that time – e.g. collaborating with/paying off the Northern Iraqi tribal leaders, changing our strategies to avoid indiscriminate killing of civilians, better relationships with the iraqi army, etc.

War bonds sound reasonable — even more reasonable would be for the Repubs who consistently want others to go to war to sign up themselves — amazing how they have turned this into an armchair war for others (and others’ children). Bring back the draft as well.

Ref: Steve Bolger #1: The issue is more properly phrased as follows: If the Republicans cannot convince the public that $10 billion a week in Iraq is related to real American interests, they (and McCain) will be dumped into the trash can of history, along with the Know Nothings and Thomas Dewey.

#19Thanks for the feed back.
Actually I am not a new improved Democrat.
I really can not stand the two party system that we have here.
One of the reasons I can’t stand it is that it has allowed the dialogue to erode into liberal versus conservative-Dem versus GOP-patriot versus traitor.
I find this sort of exchange stupid.
I am all for more parties in the process. I want Bloomberg to run. I want Ron Paul to stay in. I want Nadar to run. I want more ideas in the discussion. Not fewer.
As for the surge-I think it will work for a while-as long as we are there. Once we are out the Iraq alliance will decay and the various tribes will be fighting with eacother again-which has nothing to do with my being a democrat, a liberal, a moderate, a midwesterner, or an American.
Good luck to the people of Iraq. I really do hope you learn to live in peace and prosperity. I just don’t want to have to send my child to solve your 1500 year old disputes.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…